The directive was issued during proceedings in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1738/2024, filed by Guaranty Trust Bank against GY Farmers Ltd and other defendants.

At the resumed hearing on April 1, 2026, counsel to the plaintiff, A.B. Ogunba, SAN, informed the court of a pending contempt motion dated March 27, 2026. He urged the court to compel the individuals to appear and explain why they should not be jailed for allegedly defying existing court orders.

Ogunba stated that all parties involved had been properly served with the required contempt notices, including Forms 48 and 49.

The application targets Stanbic IBTC Bank and several of its top executives, among them Yinka Sanni, Wole Adeniyi, Olubunmi Dayo-Olagunju, Olufunke Amobi, Olu Delano, Eric Fajemisin, Kola Lawal, Remy Osuagwu, Abubakar Sadiq Bello, Helmut Engelbrecht, Rabi Isma, Funeka Montjane, Simon Ridley, Remilekun Soyannwo, and Justus Ineanacho.

Court documents reveal that the dispute arose from preservation orders issued on October 25, 2024, which restrained the defendants from withdrawing or moving funds amounting to ₦806,393,894.38. Financial institutions were also directed to disclose any funds linked to the defendants.

However, the plaintiff alleged that despite being aware of the order, Stanbic IBTC filed an affidavit on November 8, 2024, claiming that only the fifth defendant operated an account with the bank and that the account had no funds.

The plaintiff countered this claim, asserting that the bank had earlier confirmed placing a lien on the same account on November 4, 2024, and that it contained R8,736,661.91 at the time—details allegedly omitted in the affidavit submitted to the court.

Following these discrepancies, the court had earlier, on February 24, 2026, ordered the seizure of the funds in question.

During Wednesday’s hearing, counsel to Stanbic IBTC, J.C. Iheanacho, told the court that the bank had filed counter-affidavits in response to the contempt notices, insisting that no such funds existed in the account as claimed by the plaintiff.

He argued that the correspondence cited by the plaintiff was a routine banking communication and did not confirm the presence of funds. He also noted that a bank official present in court could further clarify the matter.

Justice Dipeolu, however, maintained that the contents of the letter were clear and required no alternative interpretation.

Meanwhile, counsel to the second defendant, Adeyinka Olumide Fusika, SAN, raised concerns about fairness, asking the court to ensure all documents filed by the bank are served on other parties. He also criticised what he described as a rising trend of banks submitting inaccurate affidavits under oath.

Fusika informed the court of a pending application for a stay of proceedings but said he would hold off on pursuing it to allow the contempt case to proceed.

In response, Iheanacho requested an adjournment, stating that the bank was preparing additional counter-affidavits to address the issues raised.

After listening to all parties, Justice Dipeolu adjourned the case to April 20, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. and ordered all 16 individuals to appear in court to show cause why they should not be committed to prison.

The plaintiff is also seeking to lift the corporate veil of Stanbic IBTC Bank to hold its top officials personally liable, as well as an order committing them to a correctional facility until they comply with the court’s directives.